New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Hertfordshire County Council (20 005 170) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide suitable education to Ms X's son. This has resulted in Ms X's son falling behind in his education. The Council also delayed in providing Ms X's family with social care support. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to Ms X to reflect the loss of educational provision to her son and for delaying in providing social care support. London Borough of Enfield (20 007 912) Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about the Council's failure to provide suitable education to her son Y, and to secure the provision in his education, health and care plan. The Council accepted it was at fault. To remedy the injustice caused it agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X and Y. It also agreed to review other children receiving education other than at school to ensure they are receiving the provision they are entitled to. Leeds City Council (21 001 588) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X's school admissions appeal. Manchester City Council (21 008 883) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel's decision to turn down her appeal concerning a place for her daughter at an academy school. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about appeals for academies. Staffordshire County Council (20 009 236) Summary: Mr W and Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns they raised about Mr W's child Y. Ms X said this left her and Mr W feeling the Council did not take their concerns seriously. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Kent County Council (21 000 800) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council made a wrong decision about their application to become foster parents. We found the Council treated Mr and Mrs X unfairly which resulted in a flawed decision to refuse their application. The Council has accepted fault and has now offered to proceed with the application to the next stage. That said, Mr and Mrs X still suffered an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies. Gloucestershire County Council (21 006 034) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of allegations made by the complainant's children against him. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the previous investigation by the council, and we cannot achieve the desired outcomes. Hampshire County Council (21 006 746) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a risk assessment report. This is because the complainant is able to raise her concerns about data protection with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Luton Borough Council (21 009 573) Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate Miss X's late complaint about children's social services in 2018. There is no evidence to suggest she could not have complained to us earlier. And even if we did exercise discretion it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome wanted. Northamptonshire County Council (20 001 023) Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council did not properly consider her application for school transport for her son D, who has Special Educational Needs. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council considered D's application. The Council has already exercised discretion to provide transport from the start of the calendar year. It has also agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation that it reimburse Mrs B's transport costs for D from the start of the school year, amend its policy and remind officers of the correct test for deciding whether to provide transport. Shropshire Council (20 006 467) Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council did not properly assess the risk of her son travelling without a passenger assistant when providing transport for him to his new school. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council considered the transport provision for Mrs B's son apart from the fact that it did not offer her the chance to make verbal representations to the appeal panel. However, on the balance of probability, we do not consider that this is likely to have affected its decision not to provide a passenger assistant. Peterborough City Council (20 012 766) Summary: Mrs X complained of delays within the Education, Health and Care plan review process for her child. She also says the Council wrongly refused to amend the name on her child's plan, after they changed their name by deed poll. I have discontinued this investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to warrant our involvement. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 512) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about officers' actions in relation to adoption processes. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Nottingham City Council (21 007 706) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a report the Council produced in court. This is because we cannot investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Suffolk County Council (20 012 908) Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to issue an updated Education, Health and Care plan for Mr Y after a Tribunal hearing, and when it failed to secure the provision set out in that plan. This led to Mr Y missing the support he needed and caused his mother, Miss X, distress and frustration. The Council also wrongly transferred Mr Y's Education, Health and Care plan to a neighbouring authority. This meant that Miss X had to pay for legal advice. The Council agreed to take the recommendations set out to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Miss X and Mr Y. London Borough of Brent (20 006 772) Summary: Mr X complained the Council acted outside of its powers by paying a court fine for him without his consent and without contacting him before doing so. He says this is unlawful and is aggrieved that the Council has not acknowledged that. I consider that the Council has acknowledged it acted with fault and offered an appropriate remedy to acknowledge any injustice. I am discontinuing this investigation as I cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Medway Council (20 006 953) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her with proper support when she was a child in need and when she left care. The Council has acknowledged it failed to provide Ms X with support and has provided leaving care support and paid her a financial remedy to acknowledge the distress it caused her. We have stopped our investigation into this complaint as it is unlikely that further investigation would result in a different outcome. Cheshire East Council (20 012 400) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report prepared for the Family Court. This is because we have no legal remit to investigate. Southampton City Council (21 004 780) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y's complaint about children services assessment of their family's needs. It is reasonable to have expected them to have requested an internal review of the Council's complaint response. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 704) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision made for the complainant's son. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now. Herefordshire Council (21 007 713) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in removing Ms X's child from her care. A court has decided the matter. Cumbria County Council (20 004 844) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to review her daughter's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and provide suitable alternative educational provision when her placement broke down. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to complete the Annual Review process and to fully assess whether the alternative provision provided was suitable. This caused B and Mrs Y distress and confusion, and delayed Mrs Y's appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mrs Y and B, issue B's final EHC Plan, make a payment to them and make several service improvements. Lancashire County Council (21 000 743) Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F's complaint about the way it dealt with his appeal against the decision not to provide his son with free home to school transport. This is because it failed to: clearly set out and comply with the statutory guidance requirements about the two-stage appeal process; allow him to verbally present submissions; consider if the nearest school had available places; consider the need to support parental faith school choices; explain the decision. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Plymouth City Council (21 006 893) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to not provide school transport for Mrs X's son. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. North Yorkshire County Council (21 007 510) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council delayed assessing the special educational needs of her son and has not provided alternative education during her appeal to the special educational needs Tribunal. Mrs X may return to us about the delayed assessment at the end of the Tribunal. We cannot investigate the period of the appeal including whether the Council should provide alternative education. Suffolk County Council (21 007 579) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Mrs X's selective mutism was treated while she was at school. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it. We cannot investigate the actions of schools. Sunderland City Council (20 011 849) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider a report he made about his children's welfare in 2019. We found there was no fault by the Council. Nottingham City Council (20 014 504) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to take adequate action after her daughter disclosed sexual abuse. We find the Council was not at fault. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 001 707) Summary: Mr X complained about flaws in how the Council investigated his complaint under the Children's Statutory Complaints procedure. We find the Council was not at fault. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 795) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with the complainants family since 2019. This is because we cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. North Yorkshire County Council (21 006 124) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council concealed information and shared inaccurate information to third parties, which led to the complainant being abused. This is because the events happened too long ago. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 120) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the way the Council considered a complaint about the end of a pre-adoption placement. This is because it is not a good use of public money to investigate complaint processes where the substantive matter does not warrant investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 007 676) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Mr X's children in 2018 and 2019. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 380) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter F, with alternative education when she was unable to attend school for medical reasons. The Council was at fault. It fettered its discretion and failed to properly consider the medical evidence Mrs X provided which meant F remained without any alternative provision between October 2018 and January 2019. The Council agreed to pay F £1,375 to acknowledge the loss of education during this period. The Council also agreed to pay Mrs X £500 to acknowledge the upset, uncertainty and time and trouble the matter caused her during 2018 and 2019. It will also review its home education policy to ensure it is in line with statutory guidance and relevant law. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 013 931) Summary: Mrs A complains the Council refused to backdate school transport payments despite her appeal being upheld. Mrs A says this has caused her son to miss out on transport payments he should have received. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not backdating school transport costs for Child X. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying its initial decision to deny an extension to the payments. This has caused Mrs A to incur costs and has caused Mrs A significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and backdate the transport payments. East Sussex County Council (21 006 608) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council was wrong to refuse her application for home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault. Southampton City Council (20 011 311) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council supported her and her three children. She said it did not complete assessments of their needs and it failed to rehouse the family after it learnt her house was unsafe. We find the Council was at fault for delays in completing its child in need assessments and holding reviews, however that did not cause Mrs X an injustice. The Council was not at fault in how it made her housing decision. The Council has agreed to remind staff to hold child in need reviews in the timescales specified in the assessment. Reading Borough Council (21 004 171) Summary: We cannot investigate the Council's evidence to court regarding the care of Ms X's grandchildren. We have already decided an earlier complaint about the welfare of the children in 2017. Hertfordshire County Council (21 007 087) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant's children being removed from his care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. The law prevents us from considering such matters, and we have no discretion to do so. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 007 493) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of foster carers and the placement of the complainant's children in care. This is because we cannot investigate matters which were decided in court. Liverpool City Council (21 007 529) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint, concerning financial support she received whilst acting as her grandson's formal carer. This is because the matters complained of are outside the timescales specified in the Ombudsman's Assessment Code and Mrs C could reasonably have complained earlier. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman · 53-55 Butts Road · Coventry · CV1 3BH